Car Superstitions: I KNOW They Can't Be True . . .

My aqua car: I swore I'd

never seen that color on a car

before--until I bought it
and starting seeing that
car color everywhere!

Every time I step out my door, get in my car, and drive, I swear the experience takes on a specific character.

One day will be Truck Day. There are trucks all over the road, cutting in front of me, slowing up traffic, trying to make bad turns.

The next day is Crazy Pedestrian Day. Suddenly, sidewalk strollers are darting out into traffic, not obeying cross-walk signals, strolling down the meridian.

And then it will be Out-of-Town Driver Day which, in Maine, usually means Massachusetts drivers trying to back all the way up (one-way) State Street, just to find a parking space.

I KNOW that the pattern is simply the result of perception--like when you buy a new car and suddenly, EVERYONE has that color car. But that doesn't stop me from determining, "Crap. Today is People-Making-Inconvenient-Left-Turns Day."

Our brains are wired to sort and select information. As an example, students of the brain often refer to the invisible gorilla experiment. The best-known version is a gorilla walking across the floor at a basketball game; when asked, "Did you see the gorilla?" about 1/2 the attendees said, "No."

Apparently, this tunnel-vision works the other way as well--to see only gorillas--which makes sense from a survival standpoint. Our brains are wired to perceive patterns, especially patterns that might save our lives.

However, this wiring often results in confidence about non-statistically viable conclusions. In response to the myth, "Your first answer is usually the right one!" Ken Jennings (in his book Because I Said So! The Truth Behind Myths, Tales, and Warnings Every Generation Passes Down to Its Kids), states the following:

One review found that, out of thirty-three studies, not a single one showed that changing answers hurt test-takers . . . [but] students are more likely to remember the times that an answer change worked out badly, because they'll feel cheated by the last-minute switch that cost them the question. Those memories tend to overshadow the (actually much more common) memories of an answer switch that went from incorrect to correct. It's similar . . . to the conviction that all changes of grocery store checkout lanes result in slower progress. It's not always true, but we're so outraged by the times when it is true that we forget the times when it's not.

Likewise, there are probably just as many trucks and pedestrians and out-of-state drivers on the road (at least in the summer) per day as any other day. But on any given day, my brain will start to sort and store a particular type of road annoyance more than any other.

This doesn't stop me from thinking, "Holy cow, this is Crazy Construction Day!" And I'll swear (no matter how irrational it is) that knowing, "Today is Stupid Blinker Day" helps me prepare against possible accidents.

I just wish someone would send out a memo beforehand!

I Love the World or Why Education Through Shock is Stupid (continued)

There are many reasons why people try to make others think All is Doomed from true belief to simple excitement (like Adam Savage's immense enjoyment in blowing things up). I believe one reason has to do with excessive youthfulness.

In his book Your Movie Sucks, Roger Ebert relates an exchange of public letters between him and the creators of a movie that Ebert awarded 0 (as in nada, zero, zilch) stars due to its nihilistic violence. The producer and director printed a reply, arguing (in essence), "But evil exists in the world. It is our awesome responsibility to point it out!!"

To which Ebert responded that pointing out evil just to point out evil is rather a waste of time. What, he asked the movie-makers, was your view on evil? (You see, my students, even movie-makers need a thesis!) He then provides one of the best statements ever made about writing:

Predestination may be useful in theology, but as a narrative strategy, it is self-defeating. 

Or, to quote David Foster Wallace:

Look man, we’d probably most of us agree that these are dark times, and stupid ones, but do we need fiction that does nothing but dramatize how dark and stupid everything is?

(Thanks to my sister Ann for the latter quote!)

In his letter to the anxiously insightful movie-makers, Ebert states, "Your real purpose in making the movie, I suspect, was not to educate, but to create a scandal that would draw an audience."

Now here I have to disagree with Ebert and give the movie-makers the benefit of the doubt. I think at a fundamental level the movie-makers did think they were pointing out something that nobody else had noticed. I don't know if the movie-makers were/are young, but this hypersensitivity to the oddness/unfairness/haphazardness of the world is a characteristic of youth; they've just discovered evil, and they can't BELIEVE how the rest of the world just keeps going to work and shopping at the mall. Why isn't everyone curled into fetal balls sobbing?! We must shock them into knowing what we know! We must kick-start the angst!!

It reminds me of why I seldom read commentary on Internet news items. So much of it is filled with people informing other people that they just don't get "it" to which the other people reply that the first set of  people just don't get "it" more.

I recently came across such a, ah, parallel conversation (I hesitate to call it dialog) over a Mythbusters episode in which the commentators fluctuated between angry commentary ("I can't believe people think the show's conclusion regarding this particular myth was correct! All you people who liked the episode are hiding your heads in the sand!") to sanctimonious tut-tutting ("Don't you know that all television is pacifying entertainment? How could you believe anything you saw on this show? You are so stupid to take it seriously.")

Congrats to Arishicat for a great image!

Neither extreme is necessary. I'll state upfront that I've learned a great deal from Mythbusters, mostly about water pressure. It's the sort of thing that comes up in a lot of their experiments but is rarely remarked on directly (although the "Underwater Car Myth" episode was especially enlightening). I learned about water pressure in high school, but the visuals sure help!

I will also admit that I tend to ignore/dismiss the more sociological/psychological experiments on the show, like the ones  involving polygraphs and hypnosis. The reason is simple. When Jamie, Adam, and the build team blow up rockets, they can build 100, then blow them up one by one to get a pretty decent sample size. But the sociological/psychological experiments rely on two, maybe three, maybe five subjects, which is just not a big enough sample.

In neither scenario, however, do I need to be WARNED to save myself from the evil show/military-industrial-entertainment complex.* I actually don't believe anything that I see on television (or read on the Internet) or anything that people tell me any more than I (should) automatically dismiss it. Cynicism is no better than gullibility when it comes to making reliable judgments. And information can be shelved. It can wait. Since I'm no longer a student, I don't have to decide today that something is true or false although I will eventually. (And if someone tries to get me decide today, that person likely wants to sell me something.)

I've met far too many so-called educated people who ostentatiously dumped a set of ideas, information, or principles, only to promptly adopt another set of ideas, information, or principles without question. Their approach seemed to be motivated more by a desire to belong to the edgiest of edgy cliques than a need for real understanding.

Consequently, I am very wary of professors who use SHOCK to "help" me (or my students) develop critical thinking skills. "I'm going to make people think by showing them how awful things can get!" goes the cry. Setting aside this approach's bullying nature, from what I've seen, it doesn't work--at least not with the most perceptive students who keep their own counsel. After all, real thought is rarely accompanied by a complete reduction of the will. 

Which is all to say that to a relative degree, I can endure true belief in doomsdaying (something that someone believes on his or her own account) far easier that I can endure education through so-called shock.

*I actually don't even need to be warned by Jamie and Adam not to try their experiments at home, though I gather their warnings are mostly aimed at teens; remembering my brothers in their teens, the warnings are necessary--although how many teens actually listen is debatable. I can just see a mother somewhere staring down at a pile of exploded paint cans; "But Jamie and Adam told you not to do it!" she cries. (Of course, my own mother just told my brothers to go wash themselves off.)

I Love the World Too or I'm So Tired of Doomsdaying

Lately, I've gotten fed up with people trying to tell me how bad things are/the future is doomed!!! Yeah, life is tough. Shoot, I don't know if I'll be able to pay my bills this summer. Sure, life=trials & tribulations (and I don't need pundits or well-meaning champions of the cause-de-jure to tell me so).

Yep, human history involves war, disease, and economic collapse. But being gloomy and doom-filled isn't going to stop those things from happening. Angst is a pretty poor weapon to wield whether one is trying to save a country, a company, or a casserole . . . unless the point is to depress people so much they decide there isn't any point.

THIS is a much better way to face the present and the future:

And so is this:


Granted, angst and doomsdaying klatches often operate as temporary stress-relief--like grouching about one's day, although I think far too many pundits and champions and zealots actually get pleasure from making others feel hopeless.

Stupidly so since as a philosophy/approach to life, angsty doomsdaying is pretty useless. We fight for what matters. And what matters matters when we allow ourselves to accept it with joy, gratitude, and good old excitement!

I don't usually preach my religion on Votaries; it isn't the point of the blog, and I'm a big fan of doing what is appropriate to the situation, but 2 Nephi 2:25 really does say it best (with a slight pronoun tweak):

Adam fell that we may be
And we are that we might have joy.

Isn't it just awesome!

More Thoughts On What Makes Literature Great (or Not)

I like the idea of resonance! I think a sense of familiarity or connection (even when the setting is another planet or time) makes it possible to bridge the gap between an author's context and our own. The human condition changes in particulars but never in substance.

I also think there's a great deal to the idea that good works (novels, movies, etc.) allow readers to enter the author's world. In my thesis, I argue that a flexible work is a work that contains space within it. If we can enter, find a place for ourselves, the work has creative potential.

My only caveat (to myself) is that the ability to relate appears to come as much from the reader as from the author. I can still remember a rather uncomfortable discussion with a fellow student back when I was an undergraduate; he desperately wanted to convince me that our professor's fiction book was a great piece of a literature, especially since he felt a connection to the main character of the book who had suffered a death in the family. As he described this part of the book, tears came to his eyes.

I thought the book was good but rather pedestrian. My embarrassment was not so much that it was our professor's book--I actually don't think my professor would have had a problem with my opinion--but that the fellow student's "review" was based on such heart-rending personal evidence. How does one say, "Yes, I'm quite sad for you, but really, this book is not great writing." (Okay, some people can do that, but I find it very hard.)

But the book just didn't have that something else, that "oomphiness." When I hear Katrina's final speech in Taming of the Shrew or "You Can't Always Get What You Want" by the Rolling Stones, my reaction is the same: someone human wrote that?! I don't care about the chauvinism. I hardly care about the message. At that moment, I just care about the art, the "more," the bigger than big sensation which lingers afterwards.

When I was writing my thesis, a single idea kept cropping up again and again amongst those analysts that I actually found useful; C.S. Lewis, Camille Paglia, Arnold Weinstein, Wayne Booth, Umberto Eco all refer to the same idea:

Transcendence.

For example . . .

Paglia: Yet poetry is not just about itself: it does point to something out there, however dimly we can know it.

C.S. Lewis: Literary experience heals the wound, without undermining the privilege, of individuality. There are mass emotions which heal the wound; but they destroy the privilege. In them our separate selves are pooled and we sink back into sub-individuality. But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself . . . Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do.

Resonance is clearly a key component here. In A Scream Goes Through the House, Weinstein also identifies the reader's desire to reach beyond the self, arguing that pain, loss, and love within art connect us as human beings.

C.S. Lewis's quote comes from An Experiment in Criticism in which he postulates an interesting approach--we should judge literature not by what it contains but by how it is read. He fingers transcendence as one of the signs (not the only one); with great literature, the reader is carried out of him or herself. (I discuss Lewis's approach more in the thesis's first chapter.)

Which brings me to the idea of self-forgetfulness. The seeming contradiction here is that a piece that can carry us outside of ourselves can also encourage us to relate but only by not reminding us (or itself) that that is what it is doing.

To put it another way, the work is caught up in being simply what it is. As, I would argue, is the artist.

There's a relevant scene in Amadeus (not based on real life) when Mozart's wife visits Salieri, bringing with her some of Mozart's pieces. When Salieri wants to borrow them, she shakes her head--These are the only copies. Stunned, Salieri stares at them. In that moment, seeing the unrevised compositions, he realizes that he is a craftsman while Mozart is a true artist.

My point is not that great artists never revise--shoot, most of them from Monet to Shakespeare to Austen revised and revised heavily. What I always remember about Amadeus, however, is the idea of Mozart's self-forgetfulness, his ability to get caught up in creation rather than in what the art means.

Tolkien was the same--Middle-Earth mattered, not what Middle-Earth meant. It was its own excuse. C.S. Lewis started the Narnia series with an image of a lion. Austen spoke of Elizabeth as a living person. The very thing that academics (at least in my program) criticized--the unreflective nature of the consumer--seems to be the very thing that great writers have.

(Except for George Bernard Shaw, and I'm not counting him today.)

These writers, not just the readers, seem entirely non-analytical about their creations. Even Christie, who carefully and concisely mapped out her books, seemed to think that another dead body was its own excuse (after all, it produced another 1,000 words!). Asimov--who claimed to never revise--typed his books without stopping while Stephen King--speaking of the symbolism in Carrie--states that he didn't notice it until the second draft.

In his book On Writing, Stephen King compares discovering a story to uncovering a dinosaur skeleton--the story is already there, whole, waiting to be found: sui generis. Likewise, Salieri perceives Mozart's compositions as translations of work already fully shaped in Mozart's brain.

I'm frankly in the Salieri (the imaginary character)'s homeroom than in Mozart's. But when the writing really works, when it flows, when I feel for two seconds that I'm almost in that other room . . . those are the moments when I stop thinking about the writing and just write. What comes next comes naturally, inevitably. (And then I'm back to trying to fit pieces together twenty different ways, but since I actually get a kick of that part of the process, I'm plenty happy to stick to craftswomanship.)

I hate to propose the idea of the "muse speaking through the artist," simply because many people (i.e., students) use that idea as an excuse not to draft--like speakers who want to "wing it." Well, sure, there are great speakers who can "wing it," but most of us need notecards--and waiting until the last minute for the muse to pay a visit is a really lousy idea!

And yet, I think the idea of the muse--even the working muse--has merit. The book or painting or song is made because the artist's creative need demands that it be made--yet the artist seems hardly aware of the need, only that the thing's existence is warranted. Once created, it becomes rather like a pet that sinks its claws into people's hearts--so much so that even the artist may go, "I own that?! Wow!"  (Okay, I'm also excluding Picasso who would have said, "Of course that's mine! I'm amazing!!")

To bring the two ideas together: I think great art, including novels, is art that captures the human condition while carrying the reader/viewer into a story or image that seems like it always existed. For lack of a better word, a great work of art has a whole-ness about it.

Which naturally doesn't prevent people from carving that work up for any number of reasons! 

And, having said all that, there are plenty of non-great books that I'll always keep and never give up just because I love them--whether they meet the above criteria or not.

Important Documents: What Qualifies as a Cultural Phenomenon and Why?

In my previous Persuadable post, I commented:

In any case, I have always considered literary analysis that insists that all literature have an IMPORTANT MESSAGE to be trite to the nth degree. Well-fashioned prose has done more to keep the world turning than any so-called IMPORTANT bumper sticker.

Of course, then I immediately thought of all the great documents with important messages that have influenced the world and reportedly changed people. This is the problem with making big claims! I did qualify my claim by sticking to fiction and narrowing my criticism to bumper stickers. But any message-oriented piece of writing raises the same issues: How much impact do words have? What influences people in the long-term? Can the written word change the course of history?

On the one hand, historical documents--like the Declaration of Independence--are just that: documents. That is, they document great events. The document may then become great in its own right.

Then there are documents like Marx's Communist Manifesto and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, purely philosophical texts that enter a community of debate on a particular subject.

Yet, many historical documents and philosophical treatises have died natural deaths (until resurrected in a graduate paper). Why a particular document or treatise doesn't disappear into the scrap heap of history is something people keep trying to figure out from Malcolm Gladwell to Hollywood studios. Of course, if we could all figure out what separates King and Rowlings and Meyers from every other hoping-to-be-published-writer, we'd all be rich.

So what makes texts stick? What makes a particular text matter more than the others?

One possibility is historical success. How memorable would the Declaration of Independence be if the American experiment had been replaced in a few years with a British reincarnation? (Who knows?!)

Another possibility is the author's bio. In one of the better scenes from Lady in the Water, Vick Ran confronts the Lady (while his sister is out of the room):

VICK: Change doesn't happen, the way you say it's going to happen, without dramatic events to accelerate thinking. I wrote this thing. It might take decades or longer to create a reaction, before it anchors in the consciousness.

He continues, pointing out that the only way for words to change a culture so abruptly is for an event to occur that locks the words into the culture. In a heart-breaking undertone, he asks:

VICK: Am I gonna die, because I wrote this?

STORY: Yes.

Still, there are martyrs whose philosophical views haven't been remembered, and martyrdom doesn't address what turns Stephen King, overnight, into a popular culture icon and leaves another writer struggling in obscurity.

The writers would likely say, "It's the writing!" People in my graduate seminar claimed it was the evil corporate publishing companies forcing their views on everyone, but although evil corporate publishing companies can make money this way, they rarely make legends. Disney claiming that the third Pirates movie was a "cultural phenomenon" before it even came out didn't make it true.

What fellow students in my graduate seminar often missed was the possibility that culture moves in more than one direction. By its nature, academic language tends to utilize either/or dichotomies. At one point, I pondered aloud why there has to be a dominant culture and a counter-culture. Everyone chuckled at my absurdity. I could only shake my head: no one is more bound by academic terminology than a bunch of academics.

To me, terms like "dominant," "counter-culture," and "liminal" simply describe events that we witness. But the terms are not true in the absolute sense.

Consider mental diagnosis. If you read the DMV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), you realize that a person does not have a mental disorder in the way that a person has cancer cells. Although I will allow that there may be a neurological component to some disorders, as far as the DMV (and numerous insurance companies) are concerned, the diagnosis is based on the witnessing of various behaviors in various settings.

I'm not, at the moment, challenging the validity of the DMV, only pointing out that language in this case is a short-cut for stating that a set of behaviors has been witnessed and reported in various settings. I realize that all language operates in this way, but with a mental diagnosis the short-cut often implies the opposite of what it really means. A child does not have ODD in the way a child has a virus. A child portrays behaviors that have been categorized as ODD. ODD is not the cause; ODD is a label for the effects.

In a similar way, academic language often describes effects of culture. That doesn't mean that the culture is actually composed of neatly delineated hierarchies or compactly circumscribed sets of outsiders and insiders. 

Likewise, literary analysts of the type I've described often put the cart before the horse. Because they are wedded to the idea of sociological trends that can be streamlined and managed through the application of language (x preceded y), they imagine that (elite) texts are the instigators of change. They ignore the possibility that words may reflect culture and events rather than create them. The change may already be occurring (the idea that elite texts precede change is so engrained in our culture, I occasionally encounter people who behave as though an event that precedes its written account is somehow automatically false. If it wasn't written down first, it couldn't possibly have happened!)

I personally feel the whole thing is cyclical: events create documents which reinforce events. After all, Marx and Smith were responding to something.

Likewise, an interest in vampires preceded Meyers (as many people have pointed out). That interest also preceded Buffy. Then the entire zeitgeist became reinforced until it saturated the culture.

My ultimate point is that trying to BE the change or phenomenon is unlikely to guarantee success (I'm going to make people think!!!). That's why bumper sticker philosophy seems so pointless to me: If I put enough stickers on my car, I will change YOU (although I think the real thought process here is, If I put enough bumper stickers on my car, I will make YOU understand ME). It is far wiser to simply write the thing one cares about and hope it meets the culture's needs.

Philosophy without context is rarely effective. And philosophy at the expense of context doesn't get very far. I can make profound commentary about anything if I'm pushed to it--car manuals, telephone books (yup, that's the power of an English degree!). But absent a community of thought (non-fiction) and an actual plot (fiction), that commentary will never be more than a party trick. (I made you think!!! Next, I'll make you disappear.)

Anyone Can Be A Bully: Thoughts on Convergence, Rent, and Misunderstandings about "Conformity"

I recently assigned my students an observation exercise on convergence—convergence occurs when people change their speech patterns or dress or body language to match that of a group. For example, if I move to Maine and start using phrases like “Wicked good” and “Right out straight,” I am practicing convergence.

Convergence is normal. It occurs amongst teens and cliques; it also occurs in workplaces, religious and non-religious organizations, states, and nations. Convergence is the beginning of culture.

My assignment: “Observe a group and write about how the group practices convergence, especially verbally.”

A few students wrote about teens, the workplace (one student wrote a very funny piece about working at Disney World), and language. However, a startling number of students interpreted “convergence” as conformity in the negative sense—conformity to conventions, i.e. not rocking the boat. They wrote things like, “I don’t talk in a large group if I don’t know people, so I’m practicing convergence. I don’t always express my opinions right away—I keep my mouth shut. Even though everyone else is expressing their opinions, I conform.”

Before I handed back the assignment, I addressed this confusion: “If a group is loud and boisterous,” I said, “being loud and boisterous would be an example of convergence. If the group is shy and retiring, *then* being shy and retiring would become convergence.”

“Anarchists,” I said, “can practice convergence.”

This brings me to Rent, which I recently watched for the current list on the Mike-Kate Video Club: Musicals.

Rent is the ultimate story of convergence. The core members of the group share a similar ideology. They practice similar dress (Angel doesn’t look that atypical when s/he is with the group). They have similar attitudes about drugs, AIDS, and NYC. They hang out in similar places. They talk the same. They have similar careers/artistic lifestyles. They show similar contempt towards the same things.  

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. Convergence, as I stated above, is natural.

Could you tell which one is Angel, i.e. supposedly more

unique than the others?  If you'd never seen the musical?

Where it gets supremely annoying is when a group decides, in face of all rational observation, that they are NOT practicing any kind of convergence. *They* are not conforming to a specific culture; they are all rugged individualists. Only *conventional* people conform: you know, people in suits. *Those* people conform. But free-wheeling Bohemians like "us" never conform.

Why does the group in Rent believe they aren't conforming to a group dynamic? Their actual behavior exemplifiies rigorous adherence to a "code," so how do they maintain the illusion that they are promoting individuality?

They maintain the illusion that they are being unique and different and pushing others to be unique and different by saying so over and over and over again.

Mark films things and talks; Roger (who at least has the merit of trying to differentiate himself) sulks and talks; Mimi actually has a paying job as does Joanne but when they are with the group, they just talk; Maureen blathers on and on and on.

In fact, the great irony of the musical is that the one person who actually does something, Benny, is treated with utter antipathy by the others; not only does Benny pay for Mimi to go into rehab, his business plan would raise the standard of living in the area and bring in money to build homeless shelters and free clinics. Where does the group think money for homeless shelters and free clinics comes from? It certainly doesn't come from a bunch of Bohemians who can't even pay their rent.

The musical, while lightly acknowledging that the group isn't exactly changing things (it's not their fault; it's America's fault!), falls back on the belief that talking loudly and aggressively (e.g. sticking bumper stickers all over one's car) is the solution to society's ills.

Granted, this particular silliness is symptomatic of this particular culture. What makes Rent truly unlikable is how the gang bullies and punishes strayers from the foreordained path of its convergent culture. All overtly divergent decisions are promptly squashed by the group. Move to Santa Fe? Only if you do it to "find yourself" and come right back. Get a job making actual money, a job--moreover--that could morph into something downright interesting? Not if it means you can't make your home-made movies. Quit drugs? Well, yes, drugs are very, very bad, but not so bad that Roger should actually walk away from a mutually destructive relationship; he should stay and love Mimi until she stops (because people on drugs always stop because other people love them so much). 

The most startlingly cliquey part of the movie occurs when Roger and Mimi decide to date only after they learn that the other person has AIDS. Yup, that's right: AIDS, the ultimate ticket of belonging. Go get yourself some today!

The musical really hits a low point in the gang's treatment of Benny, the only character who demonstrates any real individuality.

Diggs in Equilibrium

(And kudos to Diggs for wearing his divergent dress without shame--because, let's face it, Diggs looks good in a suit). Benny is treated like a pariah because he is “conventional” and doesn’t want to live in the slums.

It is hard to take a 2-hour musical based on this mindset seriously. It is one thing to accept the trials and tribulations and poverty of a calling (be it art, social justice, or taking the veil); it's quite another to shove those trials and tribulations and poverty in people's faces as if said trials and tribulations were automatically ennobling. 

Not that I regret watching Rent (after it was over anyway). It would be hard to understand the history of musicals without seeing it—and my somewhat less negative review of the actual musical can be found on the Mike-Kate Video Club alongside a review of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Oddly enough, I found the latter, though far more visually disturbing than Rent, far less irritating. It's the difference between a show (TRHPS) that says, "Here's an alternative culture. WOW!" and a show (Rent) that says, "Here's an alternative culture. You must admire us! Love us! Appreciate us! If you don't, we hate you."


The Ever Astonishing Meatloaf.

Tim Curry struts in the background.

Rent is the not-very-popular-clique deciding it ought to be popular, nah, nah, nah. Rocky Horror doesn't care what you think. I'm an adult, so I prefer Rocky Horror's approach.

Tell me who you are. Don't tell me how to feel.

Convention Notes 2012: Democratic Convention

Overview:

Overall, I would say that the Republican Convention was well-organized with a strong focus on the economy and the American dream. The speeches were consistently good, occasionally better than good. Romney and Ryan presented a plan (with problems).

The Democratic Convention ranged from inane to brilliant. The speakers President Clinton through Biden were strong. There was a focus, but it was mostly negative: "women are getting a raw deal" and "Romney stinks." Obama did not present any specific plan.

I tend to go with positive visions; I despise whiny feminism; and I detest divisive pandering populism. Right now, I hope better things for and from Romney than for and from Obama over the next few months.

PBS did a great job. I actually found Iffel and Woodruff better co-hosts than Lehrer (sorry Lehrer!). They were better at keeping conversations rolling. They asked fairer questions. They made communication-based comments--which, of course, I love. Kudos!

Convention Notes are written in reverse chronological order, the latest incident/speaker first. These are not "live" notes in the sense that I listen to every speech or publish the moment something is said. Mostly, my notes are an overview of each convention's tone, attitude, and communication decisions. I do try to focus on the WAY people communicate than the specific arguments being made.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH

11:00 P.M.

President of the United States Barack Obama:

So wise not to do the stadium thing!

You know, all these politicians with strong marriages are really something else!

"Yes, you do have to go to school in the morning." Okay, I was about to write that I'm not a big fan of the "kissing babies" aspect of politics but that was cute.

Obama has a nice deep voice. (But nobody has James Earl Jones' tones!)

His message is kind of blah at this point, however. And I don't think Obama should go after the RNC. The DNC's attacks on Romney have been so RELENTLESS. Having Obama go after Romney so soon in his speech just makes him look petty.

He wants more time to employ "bold experimentation like Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Ack. Ack. Ack. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the author of Big Daddy government. Ack!

All week, the DNC has been accusing Romney and Ryan for not having a concrete plan. So will Obama have one?

Nothing concrete so far. Lots of platitudes.

"Climate change is not a hoax."

See what I mean about old-school? The challenges to man-created climate change have gained credence and voice in the last five years. The DNC seems more and more lost in the 1980s and 1990s.

More platitudes. Obama is very good at delivering them, and they are well-worded. Still, in face of the RNC's claim that Obama is out of touch with the economy's problems, the platitudes just aren't enough.

As in 2008, Obama is going to do EVERYTHING!

"[Romney] won't tell us how he will end the war in Afghanistan. I will."

How, Obama? Tell us! Tell us!

He didn't. But he's going to use the money to build stuff in America.

He will reform the tax code.

What's this business of "spending money on tax breaks"? Tax breaks simply take less money from people. The money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the people (yes, that includes rich people).

He will protect Head Start. Keep students in college.

He won't turn Medicare into a voucher. No elderly person should spend his/her life at the "mercy of Medicare." Based on my dad's medical issues this year, a person in the hospital is at the mercy of the institution paying the bills, no matter who that is. (There's lots and lots of Medicare hoops, believe me.)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Sorry, but I'm not hearing anything concrete. Lots of "we believe" statements. Everybody will be happy. Everybody will be fed.

Everybody will eat cake.

"My fellow citizens: you were the change."

Everybody will eat cake and feel good about themselves. Yep, he's painting a picture of pure pandering populism.

Obama has failings, but he won't tell us what they are.

"I'm hopeful because of you." (See populist pandering above.)

Obama has powerful delivery. But no way can the DNC claim that Obama presented a more concrete vision than Romney and Ryan. HE DID NOT.

10:00 P.M.

So Biden is speaking tonight.

Dr. Jill Biden speaks.

She teaches at a community college! Good for her!!

She says nice things about her husband.

The Honorable Joe Biden: Praises his wife. Nice. Actually, his words about his wife are some of the most authentic I heard in both conventions. 

"I want to take you inside the White House."

This is what Laura Bush did for her husband in 2004; her image of W. was quite affecting.

"The one thing I learned about Barack is the depth of his heart, and he learned the depth of my loyalty to him." That is quite touching.

Obama's concern doesn't automatically translate into smart political moves. I personally can believe that he means well. But a note about politicians' concerns for us plebs: a concern for plebs doesn't mean that the politician trusts the plebs. Henry VIII (sorry for the comparison, but it is so useful) claimed he was acting for the average Englishman when he cannibalized the monasteries. Doesn't mean the average Englishman wanted Henry VIII paying too close attention to him or his household. 

Can't anyone talk about Obama without attacking Romney?

Am I reading this right: Obama bailed out bankrupt, big-business car companies? That's not a good thing.

"[Romney's] approach may bring the highest profits, but it's not the way to lead from the Oval Office."

Did Biden really just say that? Way to make the Republicans' argument for them!

Biden stumbling over himself doesn't bother me or make me think he doesn't mean what he is saying, etc. I'm smart enough to figure out what he means. What is cute about Biden is that he really doesn't understand how Romney would think that bailing out bankrupt companies is a bad idea--how can anyone who loves cars think that?

I know Osama Bin Laden got taken out on Obama's watch but considering the Democratic resistance to W.'s War on Terror, I just can't give the DNC credit. Bush, Jr. truly went out on a courageous, heavily-criticized limb to put that War on Terror in motion. Maybe it was right. Maybe it was wrong. But in my book, he gets the credit for everything that followed, no one else. (And I didn't go after him from a left or right position when he was in office either.)

Romney's position on Osama Bin Laden during the primaries was actually pragmatic. But it wasn't a smart position for a politician to take.

Biden is going after the Republican "plan." This is a mistake. Clinton did the job of attacking the Republican plan last night. Biden got the arena excited about Obama; he should have ended there.

And going after outsourcing is silly. The international job market IS the future of the economy. This argument makes the DNC look positively reactionary.

(Softly) Stop talking, Biden. You've sold the candidate. Stop talking.

He did end on a strong note. But the speech was way too long.

9:15 P.M. 

It has occurred to me that the DNC might be making a large mistake by not admitting that things aren't going well in the economy. Clinton did the best job of all the speakers trying to combine the message "we are better off" with the perception "things are worse." But by continually arguing that Obama has made things better, the DNC actually might be distancing themselves from the undecided voters by not admitting that things need to change.

Obama could handle this by presenting a plan. Even Yahoo News expects this!

9:10 P.M.

PBS spoke to the opposition, a Republican giving the RNC's views. The Republican Governor actually did a strong, level-headed, soft-voiced job of pointing out the true state of the economy. He dealt with the "war against women" by pointing out it is a contrived argument. Good for him! "Of course [Obama] is going to change the topic." Absolutely!!

Kudos to PBS for doing this (they spoke to a Democrat spokesman during the Republican Convention). 

9:00 P.M.

John Kerry speaks. He isn't much of an iconic image. But I don't suppose the DNC could really not have him talk. 

It's hard to take Kerry seriously about, well, anything. But especially on foreign policy. This is actually not based on Kerry's campaign but on a very funny paragraph in an P.J. O'Rourke essay about Kerry going to some foreign country and walking around looking concerned while not actually doing or saying anything.

In his favor, I think he really believes what he is saying. I think Clinton was just showing off ("you know I should still be your president; really, you know it"). But Kerry is a believer in Obama's right to rule.

"Ask Osama Bin Laden if he is better off than he was four years ago." Well, he's dead. But it's a good line.

Kerry is really attacking Romney, especially for waffling. Methinks the gentleman does protest too much. I suppose there is something cathartic here where Kerry can work off his anger at being depicted as a flim-flam one-dimensional politician by attacking a man he imagines to be more of a flim-flam man. Sorry, Kerry, but Romney still has more substance than you.

Kerry is actually being quite mean. Yuck.

Maybe the DNC figured they could have Kerry give this speech because, unlike Clinton, he has absolutely nothing to lose.

And I just don't buy Kerry or the DNC as hawks. And why go out of one's way to offend military people? Many of them are Republicans.

This speech was the biggest piece of phoniness I've heard in this convention--not because Kerry didn't believe it (he did) but because the man saying it has all the political substance of Kraft cheese. I could excuse that if he wasn't so cruelly mocking about Romney. Booo.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH

11:00

President Bill Clinton sells Obama. He addresses the RNC's position regarding government. He is now going to argue that business and government should work together. Interestingly, he just made the RNC's case for it. But at least he's being honest about what the RNC actually said.

And he uses his own presidency to sell the Democrats as pro-job. The guy is smart.

He argues that the far-right hates Obama. Unfortunately, the rhetoric from the far-right, which makes me cringe, is hard to live-down by more moderately-spoken conservatives. But I don't think that anyone but Clinton can argue that people at the DNC don't hate Romney.

He's being nice about the Bushes. Good for him.

Romney and Ryan are being presented as a "faction"--this goes along with the word "ideological" used last night. However, I'm not sure that pointing out how different Romney and Ryan are from the supposedly "cooperative" Obama is going to turn people against them.

He paints the Republican Convention as full of honorable people who love their families. (Is this guy planning to run again?)

He has pointed out one major flaw in Ryan's plan: how is the U.S. going to pay for it?

But he isn't saying much about Obama except we should give him a chance to finish the process he started four years ago. "We're better off than when he took office." That may be technically true, but I don't think that's most people's perception.

"Too many do not feel [the improvement]. I had the same thing happen."

So basically, Bill Clinton came on stage and sold . . . Bill Clinton.

Did Obama really save Detroit? Was it a good thing that Detroit was saved? It has been the most consistently mentioned positive item on Obama's "resume."

Clinton deals with the big issues:

Healthcare: The Republicans say it is a disaster. Clinton argues that individuals and businesses have gotten refunds through the plan; insurance companies have lowered their rates; more young people are insured; millions of seniors are receiving preventative care; insurance companies will soon have millions of new customers.

He did not address being forced to get healthcare insurance against one's will.

Medicare: Regarding Obama "robbing Medicare," Clinton claims there were no cuts to benefits. What Obama did "to save money" was take money from somewhere but nobody really wanted that money anyway.

Clinton just quoted Ryan. For a guy who is supposed to be promoting Obama, Clinton sure is giving his opposition a lot of press. I don't suppose Clinton read the memo about "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name correctly."

Or he does know. Clinton is totally capable of playing both sides of the fence.

Welfare Work Requirement: Republicans claim Obama wants to weaken the welfare work requirement (that Bill Clinton put into place): Obama gave waivers to governors as long as they have a credible plan.

Why is Obama giving exceptions to state governments? Do presidents do that?

Tax cuts: Clinton Romney and Ryan are promoting tax cuts (to wealthy people). Their budget doesn't balance. Romney and Ryan want to cut programs.

He keeps talking about his first election--so I figured out where Clinton is coming from: if you still love me, you'll vote for Obama.

The speech was frankly quite good. Clinton did a better job selling a positive/long-term image of Obama than all the previous speakers. Well, he did a better job actually trying to address the Republican positions than all the previous speakers. In all honesty, I found it easier to listen to than attacks on Romney and Ryan's supposed anti-feminism. I'm not sure how factual his factoids were, but at least he actually talked about the economy!

As I guessed, Obama came out on stage to be seen with Clinton. This convention is all about pairing Obama with iconic images.

10:45 P.M.

It fascinates me that Clinton is speaking. He was, all things considered, a rather moderate president, far more moderate than the current president. And he wants to be loved. By everyone. All of America. As president, this actually made him prone to govern by poll--which isn't automatically a bad characteristic in a president.

But Obama is not beloved. Despite the speakers at the DNC. So why is Clinton tying himself to Obama?

Because he has no choice really.

10:30

Elizabeth Warren talks about hard-working people who are suffering because the "game is rigged against them." That perspective loses me immediately. Life is hard. There's no reason to turn it into a conspiracy. "Their fight is my fight, and it's Barack Obama's fight too." What does that mean?

Ah, it means the populist argument. This is such a tiresome, adolescent argument. Do these people really think that painting the world as small business owners versus arrogant bankers even begins to address the issue of debt and expensive programs? Rather than persuading me, I'm left (yet again) with the feeling that the DNC is not prepared to make hard choices or even recognize the world as it is. It's a fog of imagery: Romney wants to give tax cuts to billionaires. (I don't have a problem with that actually. Better someone gets the tax cuts than nobody.)

"Romney and Ryan would vaporize Obama Care." Well, I hope so.

"Romney said corporations are people. No, Romney, corporations are not people."

Um, reality-check, yes, they are. This ain't The Matrix. (Although wouldn't it be fun if Hugo Weaving showed up? "It's the guy from The Matrix.")

Brooks thought the 10:00 speeches would be more aimed at the undecided middle-class. I dunno. Warren's speech isn't positive or inclusive. It's a populist argument about how awful Romney is. (And equal pay for equal work.)

How effective is the populist argument? I loathe it, always have. I'd say it was a canny move since Obama can't make many positive arguments regarding his presidency. But I'm not sure that the DNC cares. Put simply, the DNC can't stand the "ideological" stance of Romney and Ryan. Which may actually end up selling Romney and Ryan.

8:30 P.M.

David Brooks is doing a good job tonight with questions! He just asked the guest in the PBS box why the DNC is focusing more on gay marriage and reproductive rights than on the economy.

He's made strong points tonight in his gentle urbane way.

8:20 P.M.

But I've finally figured out the DNC's theme: women. Seriously. I never would have guessed--mostly because I don't see myself as a member of a beleaguered minority. The repeated statement of the evening is: "Being a women is no longer a pre-existing condition." I would just put it down to this night's specific theme. But "women's issues" were discussed Tuesday as well.

The sub-text to "being a women is no longer a pre-existing condition" is "due to Big Daddy holding our hands." Which doesn't strike me as particularly feminist.

But that's not what's thrown me. What's thrown me is, Okay, apparently, the DNC believes they have located a weak spot--Romney and Ryan's conservative attitudes regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood (and their affiliation with conservative mainstream churches?). I just can't imagine this is a smart move. Can an election really be won just on "women's issues"?

8:00 P.M.

I looked up voting statistics. In 2008, slightly more women voted than men, but not by much: 51% to 48%. 18 to 24-year-olds made up 12%. 25 to 44-year-olds was 36%. 44 to 64-year-olds was 34%. Young voters may love Obama (debatable: in Maine, they love Ron Paul), but 12% just ain't that comparative much (65+ is 16%). 

Mark Shields made a point that I've been pondering all week--apparently weather has cancelled Obama appearing in the stadium tomorrow. Shields thinks the weather-folks did Obama a favor: appearing in a huge stadium at a time of economic turmoil was NOT a good idea. I've been thinking this for two weeks!

The fact that the DNC even considered it, however, goes along with my overriding point: they keep doing the same-old-same-old: bring out the women to squawk about abortion; rent a big stadium; refer to Democratic icons; sell populism. All this rather than responding to the conditions of the world around us.

7:55 P.M.

Caroline Kennedy is in the PBS box. I actually quite like her. She's got grace and poise and a friendly demeanor.

(Though when she says that last week the Republican Convention didn't show-case success stories of working-class people, my thought is, "Did you watch it?")

But she isn't shrill or lacking in a sense of humor. Kudos.

7:45 P.M.

And it's the Parade of "Democrat women from the Senate." Really, DNC, this is so old-school. Why not parade out the men? Why not parade out the senator's pets? (THAT would be WAY more interesting.)

These female speakers are really selling the equal pay for equal work theme. Setting aside whether this is even as big a topic as the speakers claim, I'm not sure this is wise. American families are worried about the economy. A husband with a well-paying job is not a liability.

This is the second evening where the main theme of the conference has been: "Women should be treated more fairly. Women should have reproductive rights" (i.e. rights to abortion). Um--men make up 50% of voters.

And not all women are Democrats. And not all women consider these issues the most important issues. It seems a tad . . . narrow. What is the DNC thinking?

7:30 P.M.

Nancy Pelosi: "When you go to the polls, vote for Medicare. Vote for President Obama. When you go to the polls, vote for Social Security. Vote for President Obama. Democrats trust the judgment of women."

You know, if she had said, "Democrats trust the judgment of Hispanics," the press would be all over the statement for its implicit racism (are Democrats implying that Hispanics are inherently untrustworthy? that a special effort needs to made--a kind of white man's burden--to trust Hispanics?). So why are these statements still being made about women? 

It's a laundry list of been-there-done-that. The Democrats haven't addressed any of the financial shenanigans that Republicans mentioned in their convention (but then, that's not really their job; the job of the convention is to sell a platform to the party).

David Brooks just lobbed a low-ball question at a Democrat congresswoman: "Why did the House lose its majority two years ago?" She boggled. Seriously. Boggled. Her answer: People wanted a faster fix. They stayed home.

Ah, the cute sadness of wishful thinking. Voters never vote wrong in Democrat-world; they just vote mistakenly: they were bamboozled, so they stayed home; they would have voted differently if they realized how hard we are working (see White Man's Burden above).

He lobbed a really interesting question: "Why did Michelle Obama not tell the success stories of both her and her husband?" Oh, come now, Brooks, you can't expect politicians to go dismantling their populist images when they're working so hard to create those images!

7:00 P.M.

Here is the weirdest thing I've encountered so far: according to the schedule, Biden won't be speaking tonight. That is so strange. Wednesday is ALWAYS VP night. Instead, Bill Clinton is winding up the evening. This does dovetail with my theory that Obama (and Biden) are being sold not on their own merits but on their group of friends (I refrained from first writing "clique"--see I'm trying to be more objective).

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH

I can't say that I know what the Democratic Convention is selling other than Mitt sucks. Maybe . . . diversity is good? but no concrete, stable image or vision of America. A kind of warm & fuzzy amorphous vision floated through the speeches this evening--but the vision was underscored by an immense distaste for Mitt. I'm not surprised. Just a little more disillusioned by the party in power (yes, Democrats, I mean you).

11:00 P.M.

President's Wife: Michelle Obama

I always like the First Ladies. Most of them are real ladies. We'll see how Mrs. Obama fares in her speech

The parties are battling right now over Horatio Alger stories: I had to walk uphill both ways in ten foot snow drifts to work for less than minimum wage in order to get ahead!

I can't say Michelle is helping me know Obama better. She's delivering a bunch of platitudes. I liked Ann Romney's image of five boys arguing in a house on a rainy day. There's a little of that in Michelle Obama's speech, but mostly, she's saying stuff like "he's such a good man whose life experiences have made him who he is."

Um. Okay, never mind.

Thursday, I'm teaching my business students about not using redundant language.

She is running down the party line of Obama's "achievements." I haven't noticed anything revealing or unique. She believes what she is saying. But while I may not like Obama's policies, I do believe he is a good man. I would be open to a personalize account of his struggles. This speech isn't personal. It's a list of iconic images. I wanted something like this.

The PBS guys are positive about the speech. I thought it fell short. It was passionate--Michelle Obama had conviction--and got the floor riled up. But it didn't make a rather aloof man any more real to me.

Hmmm, an election where two extremely reserved men run against each other. This is getting kind of weird.

10:30 P.M.

Keynote Speaker: The Honorable Julian Castro

Discusses his mother and grandmother--these types of speeches (the ones with personal stories) are the most effective. He is selling the image of America--hard work, independence--that speakers sold in the Republican Convention.

"But we recognize there are things we can't do alone."

True. But this statement lacks resonance. What exactly does "not alone" mean?

I think this guy is under-selling himself (and his mother and grandmother). He wants me to believe that he and his brother graduating from Ivy League Schools was some kind of fluke; everyone in Texas could have done it if there was just enough education in America.

Where did he get the drive? The funds? In his Wikipedia article, he does credit affirmative action with helping him get into Stanford and Harvard but doesn't explain why he aimed for law school in the first place and how he managed to survive there. He is ignoring that ineffable sense of self and ambition that Republicans were trying to capture in their own convention.

"[The Republicans] told a few stories of individual success--" they told A LOT of stories of individual success actually.

And . . . another attack on Romney.

What are these guys selling? No to Mitt Romney? Well, that's . . . insubstantial.

Castro just played the "keep jobs here" card. I've never agreed with this--no matter what side was advocating it. International trade is inevitable. Jobs being shipped overseas (in both directions) is what happens when communication shrinks a world. China may rule us all eventually. Get over it, people. Rome rose and fell and rose again in a new guise. That's real flexibility.

By the way, there was a nasty crack about Republicans not caring about people suffering from Hurricane Issac. The REPUBLICAN, NOT Democratic website, has a Red Cross link to give aid to the Relief Effort, and it was up even while the Republican Convention was going on.

9:45 P.M.

PBS finally got an interesting guest in the booth: the Democratic Governor of Montana. They've mostly been interviewing people who planned the convention about how great the convention is. Very boring.

The governor is a down-to-earth fellow. He actually made the "if a chief executive can't fix things in eight years, it is time to move on" argument. Um, why eight? Why not four?

Obama family members just spoke. I just realized how few family members spoke at the Republican Convention. I didn't miss them because I think it was wise not to have them. I think the DNC is working off an old-playbook.

9:30 P.M.

Lots of talk about Detroit--not sure why.

The economy is pretty much being ignored--except for the claim that we are better off than four years ago. Well, I'm not. (But I'm not going to blame Obama or Bush, either.)

9:00 P.M.

ObamaCare is defended by a mother and a little girl brought up on stage with her father and sister. The baby sister is crying. Oh, my goodness, just go kiss some babies!

8:45 P.M.

Kennan gave the pro-abortion talk.

A woman who wants an abortion shouldn't be required to get a ultrasound? Why is that bad? I'd think that getting an ultrasound would ensure the procedure going well. But maybe the idea is that ultrasounds will give pregnant women warm and fuzzy feelings about the fetus, and they won't abort. But why is it wrong for a woman to really think though her decision?

My opinion here is formed by Star Trek.

What's really interesting, though, is that in an effort to distinguish Obama from Romney, his more liberal agendas--gay marriage, abortion, the environment--are being emphasized. How will this go over with moderate Democrats who are strongly in favor of conservative moral issues?

"Women in America cannot trust Mitt Romney."

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth gave a good speech, much more similar in type to the Republican speeches--a personal story followed by an ideological stance--than the speeches so far.

Lincoln Chafee has just defined "liberal" as the government helping you do things. Christopher Hitchens must be rolling in his grave.

8:30 P.M.

Hey, this is fun! The Democrats are selling the "America is diverse" image, which is admittedly a nice image. Rep. Polis included "Mormons" in his speech. He also included Republicans. So I'm going to give him kudos as truly believing in his diversity ideology.

But how fun is it that the phrase: "Jews and Catholics, gays and straights, Muslims and Christians" now includes Mormons?!

8:15 P.M.

Kerry's convention, honesty, was far more bearable (I even said nice things about Obama in 2004!).

8:00 P.M.

Video of Ted Kennedy.

Basically, this is a night of iconic images, both verbal and visual. This is not a bad idea. Running Obama based on what he represents iconically, not what he has actually done or said, is pretty darn intelligent. 

And yet the video about Ted Kennedy went after Romney personally. The RNC's videos last week didn't do this (why advertise your opposition?). Plenty of speakers spoke about Obama's record but other than Clint Eastwood (mentioning "lawyers"--heh), few people, if any, attacked Obama's background.

By the way, that doesn't mean Obama's background is somehow "better" than Romney's in some strange moral sense. It just means the DNC is incredibly intolerant.

And frightened.

7:45 P.M.

So far the speakers are selling the image of Romney as a fat-cat indifferent to the middle-class versus Obama who "walks with us." These opposing images are pure populism: images, nothing more. But they are powerful ones.

There's also a continual use of the word "ideological" (in a negative sense--directed at Romney & Ryan).

The use of keywords/phrases is an important part of any communication strategy. The keywords/phrases with the RNC were "success" and "turn the page." ("We built it" never really did catch fire.)

So far, the DNC appears to be using "ideological" and "Obama walks with us." I question the first. It isn't really a catch-fire phrase outside of certain circles. However, within those circles, it is very powerful. The second is silly. But strong.

7:30 P.M.

Carter's Video

I actually think Carter IS still a gentleman. He is 87!

7:15 P.M.

BAD FEMINISM

I'm trying to be objective, but BAD FEMINISM happens to be one of my soap-boxes. I hate so-called tolerant liberals telling me that I should be a good lil' woman and vote the "right way."

The DNC just did something it did in 2008. I thought it was silly then. I still think it is silly: Parade the Democrat "women of the House" across the stage to talk about issues from the 1970s.

It is so demimonde/Southern belle/debutante/prom queen erk. It was weird in 2008. It's weird now and bizarrely patronizing. It's like when the DNC sends me brochures telling me to vote on "Women's Issues." So, what are those? Not the War in Iraq? Not health care issues for men (I have male friends and family members)? Not immigration? I'm a women so I'm only supposed to care about health care issues for women and supposed unequal pay (which is a WAY more complicated topic than usually discussed)?

This "parade" of sycophantic barbies is NO comparison to the tough, smart, savvy female governors and politicians who spoke--NOT paraded--at the Republican Convention. There was nothing individual about the different Democrat female speakers' claims. They spouted a bunch of political cliches plus unwarranted stereotypes about the supposed "home" of women (that is, in the Democratic Party) that I find completely offensive.

I'm breaking my own rules about labeling, but I've encountered way too many so-called tolerant liberals who want to put me in a box because I'm a woman. As Camille Paglia would say, Real women need to deal with real men in order to grow up. This means dealing with men who might have old-fashioned ideas about women but respect toughness, NOT with men who claim to be feminists but really can't stand women who think differently from them or with men who baby women into feeling good about themselves rather than expecting them to be tough.

Okay. Sorry. Back to the speakers.

7:00 P.M.

The convention hall looks like the sports stadium it is. Granted both halls have been sports stadiums, but the DNC convention hall LOOKS like one, mostly because of the huge video screens.

Mark Shields is such a loyal Democrat. David Brooks will often step back from his political point-of-view and start talking objectively. Mark Shields rarely does. It makes him cute. It also makes him kind of silly. So, he'll mention the ABC poll and then dismiss it in the same breath (Obama has dipped in the polls).

Henry Reid is selling Obama as a guy who makes the tough calls. I admit I forgot about this approach. It's actually the best approach with an unpopular president; he isn't unpopular because he's done dumb stuff, but because he makes the unpopular choices!

And . . . Reid goes on the attack: the Republicans have done nothing but stand in the way of Obama. The Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party and, boy, they are just raining on everyone's parade.

AND . . . he just played the populist card. Have I mentioned how much I despise this card? AND . . . he just went after Mitt as unknown, wealthy, non-transparent, and ideological.

So, pretty much, everything the Republicans said would happen in the Democrat Convention is happening: ATTACK THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE! It's such an awful approach. Unfortunately, it is also somewhat effective. Attack ads do work.

Pre-7:00 P.M. Remarks

So, in all honesty, I'm not looking forward to this convention (although I am curious and will try, however poorly, to be somewhat objective). Both parties have a tendency towards extreme either/or rhetoric: choose our side or the whole country gets flushed down the toilet! But liberals--not Democrats--tend to whine more. Right-wingers will call down the wrath of God; liberals will complain about how unfair everyone is being. I find it easier to listen to fire & brimstone than to listen to matches & vinegar--put-upon matches & vinegar moreover. (Exception: Right-wingers do tend to whine about political correctness.)

However, this is an entirely personal reaction and partly a product of living in blue territory (although Maine is more eggplant than blue or red). I can appreciate that another person might find the right-wing rhetoric more grating than the left-wing rhetoric (tone aside, they are quite similar).

I am looking forward to Clinton's speech--since he is more used cars salesman than whiny aristocrat. In fact, I'm hoping Hillary speaks too. The Clintons, for all their faults, are bred-to-the-bone-don't-burn-your-bridges-stupidly politicians. This makes them far more bearable than their more idealistic colleagues.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Convention has already lost (more) points with me by making it almost impossible to track down a week-long schedule of speakers by hour. They have released Tuesday's podium schedule. But not Wednesday's or Thursday's (as far as I can discover). The Republican Convention schedule was not easy to locate, but the week-long schedule of podium speakers had been released to the press by Tuesday.

Um, guys, the GOP is already saying you can't run a country. How about running your convention more efficiently?

The Honorable Henry Reid and First Lady, Michelle Obama will speak tonight.

The DNC in a Rut

I was struck, driving to work this morning, at how incredibly old-school the Democratic Convention was last night. The topics were old-school topics; the attitude old-school belligerence.

The Republicans were old-school too. The difference is like the difference in music between the conventions. Republicans don't pretend to be anything other than Mom, Apple Pie, and Country Music. Okay. I can hate that imagery or love it, but it is what it is.

But the DNC wants me to believe it is vibrant and new and cutting edge when it isn't so much. All these tired old topics from the 1980s before the workplace completely changed, pushing the service industry (and women) to the forefront. The same shrieks about abortion before medical advances made the fetus a much more viable reality than ever before (you can do freakin' surgery on a fetus now!). The same insistence on women being protected by Big Daddy. The same unrelenting commitment to entities like Head Start which have not completely proven their effectiveness.

It's strange. Haven't these people read ANY papers or books about women in the workplace, medical advancements, or education in the past twenty plus years? Should the same issues really still be discussed in exactly the same way?

Of course, as a libertarian, I just want the government to pave roads, fund education (in a variety of forms), leave me alone when I cross state lines, and stop terrorists. Everything else (okay, almost everything else) can be taken care of at the state level.

Convention Notes 2012: Democratic Convention Caveat

Before I begin (tomorrow), I'm going to confess that Barack Obama lost a great deal of my goodwill at the beginning of this year.

To retrace my steps: I did not vote for or against Obama back in 2008. I didn't--and don't--agree with many of Obama's policies, but I believed (1) that a democracy can survive a trial leadership; and (2) Obama was a gentleman.

I still believe (1)--that's kind of the point of democracy. I don't so much believe (2) anymore.

At the beginning of this year, before Romney even was confirmed as the RNC candidate, Obama and his people started going after him--at a personal level. Attacking a candidate's policies are the norm; both sides do it. Attacking a candidate personally, unfortunately, is also the norm. But I had agreed to the idea of Obama as president solely on the basis of his claims to being able to cross the aisle. His knee-jerk, angry, and reactionary response to the possibility of Romney's candidacy disgusted me. I consider it unprofessional, dirty, and frankly ungentlemanly. 

Currently, the DNC has been running ads in Maine about how people shouldn't vote for Romney because he's wealthy. I hate this type of politics-- really loathe it. It is illogical--an ad hominem fallacy that preys on the populist notion that wealth=fat cats=bad people. It has nothing to do with whether or not Romney has good ideas for how to run the country.

Granted, to a degree, all campaigns are run on hot-air. But I find it easier to cope with politicians when they don't pretend to be something they are not. Romney is well-off. So is Obama. So was Obama before he ran for office. Comparative-wealth-schomparative wealth: they both make WAY more money than me. Obama trying to sell himself to me as some kind of gosh-schucks-everyday guy who gets my pain just burns me. I'd rather talk to Bill Gates.

The Rhetoric of Disrespect

In a few weeks, I'll be posting about the Republican and Democratic Conventions. So this seems an appropriate time to discuss my political perspective. I am technically a registered Independent. When asked directly, I usually refer to myself as a Conservative Libertarian.

Politics makes me wary--in the same way that people selling toner over the phone make me wary. I think this is true for a lot of people: there are so many issues and opinions and so much seemingly contradictory evidence. It is possible to parse through all this stuff (I'm not advocating relativity), but since it is so much, most people rely either on their "gut" or on experts, such as pundits, politicians, or analysts.

I'm not entirely comfortable with this approach, however. The "gut" is notoriously unhelpful except in fight or flight situations (and on NCIS). And all experts are fallible: when do an expert's political ties/decisions begin to negate his or her credibility? How can a voter be forearmed against that expert's loss of credibility? In the last four years, I've changed mechanics three times. I've had material justification for each switch. This isn't always possible in politics.

Consequently, I've developed my own criteria for judging a political argument. I will acknowledge upfront that this criteria has its flaws, namely a variation on the ad hominem fallacy: just because people sound crazy doesn't mean they are. But it is fairly effective in winnowing out the chaff.

My criteria:

• I ignore rhetoric that tells me America is doomed due to a person or group (Obama, George W., Clinton, gays, the NRA, teacher's unions, Big Business, Democrats, Republicans, commies, etc. etc. etc.).
• I ignore rhetoric that insists that I must make an either/or choice (a fallacy itself) immediately to prevent the aforementioned catastrophe.
• I ignore rhetoric that aggressively and constantly focuses on defining and attacking an opposition.

I realize (1) there are problems in America as well as in any other country/civilization, and specific groups often do have a hand in creating these problems; (2) to an extent, this language is the language of politicians and their cohorts; it's how they communicate with each other.

Still, in my experience, the downsides of the rhetoric outweigh its benefits since (1) it is possible to discuss problems and advocate a positive conservative or liberal vision without resorting to the rhetoric; (2) or, at least, toning it down. 

Downsides of this rhetoric:

(1) It makes people stupid. 

I'm not saying that people who use this rhetoric ARE stupid. I'm saying it makes them stupid.

Life is complicated. People are complicated. Except when life is pretty straight-forward and people are too. Whatever the case, this rhetoric almost always seems to descend into a kind of partisanship where people can say things like, "Well, my friends tell me that George W is the worst president since Reagan," and "I'm so glad I belong to a tolerant party; I'm so sick of Christians in the political arena" and  "She's saying she likes that book about the slave-trade because she supports affirmative action."

The people who made the (real) above quotes without irony are not intrinsically dumb people, but the use of rhetoric made them say rather appallingly stupid things.

(2) It promotes disrespect.

In Maine, Governor LePage removed a 11-panel, 36-foot mural from the Maine Department of Labor because it was pro-union.

It is. And I'm not. But he had it removed over a weekend, without prior announcement or plans to move the mural elsewhere (it has now been placed in the Maine State Museum, a wise choice). He basically had it taken down and stuck it in a closet to encourage the Department of Labor "to be focused on the job at hand."

Setting aside the ridiculousness of supposing that a piece of artwork from 2008 (which, by 2011, would have become merely part of the decor) was solely responsible for influencing the attitudes of the Department of Labor (and doubly supposing that anyone had noticed the content), the mean-spiritedness of the act leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

How hard would it have been to explain the artwork's partisanship and why it isn't, to borrow a term, "politically correct" to leave it where it is; to announce plans to move the mural to the Maine State Museum; to plan a commemorative gala on the day of the move with the artist present, giving the governor an opportunity to congratulate her on winning the Maine Art Commission award that led to the painting and installation of the mural in the first place?

Answer: Not hard at all.

But when this type of rhetoric becomes ideological, every inconsistency, every signal of disagreement, every attempt to suggest an alternative, every piece of artwork or music or gesture becomes a battleground. One of my fellow instructors who practices a liberal academic version of this rhetoric walked into one of my classrooms last semester and openly mocked a topic written on the board (my students had been brainstorming). Thankfully, the student who suggested the topic had already left the room. But it was more important to the instructor to make his cruel, little comment than to respect the students, me, or the educational setting.

(3) It ignores the evidence of one's eyes. 

Before I continue, I should point out that I do realize that not all proofs are material in nature and that my experience is limited. The United States is in debt. I can't see it, but that doesn't make it untrue. And the ramifications of that debt appropriately trouble people who know more about finances than me.

What I'm referring to is the strange disconnect between people's actual, everyday experience and their view of the immediate physical world. I sit at my desk, typing on a computer that I bought with my own money. I am on the Internet, able to access documents from all over the world as well as my local government without any censorship or monitoring. I look out the window and see a bright, humid day. No smog. No collapsed buildings. No mobs. No riots. No nuclear mushroom clouds. I go to the store, and the clerk accepts my cash as legal tender without any question. The goods I want are on the shelf. I can vote. I walk around during daylight hours without being accosted.

By any historical standard, I am living in a wonderland land and so are many other people. 

To accept the rhetoric that I hear from many political pundits, I would have to literally ignore the evidence of my own eyes. I would have to pretend that none of these privileges are true. I would to pretend that things are happening to me that aren't and vice versa. I would have to hold my own experience hostage to what the "experts" tell me.

The world of psychology tells us that people do see what authority persuades them to see. Or perhaps they just see their own desires. Perhaps LePage looked at the mural and didn't just see a rather ordinary, biased piece of art but a whole network of conspirators. Maybe my fellow instructor walked into the classroom and saw a world of uneducated rednecks threatening his security.

I'd rather trust the evidence of my own eyes.

A Tribute to Chica, Including a Reflection on the Role of the Narrative as Prompted by a Contemplation of Pet Psychology

Although I seldom post directly about my Examiner.com articles (the link can be found under "Related Links" to the right), I'm posting about this one because of its ties to family history.

Examiner.com likes its Examiners to post slideshows, so about a month ago, I decided to create a slideshow of the Woodbury family cat, Chica. To my consternation, I discovered that I had very few pictures of the cat I grew up with (exactly 2) and sent out an SOS to my family. I ended up with 8 more pictures (1 duplicate), and 1 pastel.

My sister Ann, the original owner of the cat, also sent me notes of her experience with Chica (originally "Chichen"). As I began to piece together her notes with my memories, I found myself remembering more and more, such as where Chica ate and Chica's tendency to bring home dead rodents for the family's appraisal.

Unfortunately, I have always had a vivid recollection of Chica's last, long day.

The slideshow also became a trek down nostalgia lane. All the house-related pictures were taken at the house I grew up in: Tecumseh Way in Scotia-Glenville, New York. Chica lived from 1966-1983. I was born in 1971, so until the age of 12, I'd never known a different cat. And I was convinced (up until I put together this slideshow) that Chica lived to be 21.

He lived to be 17. However, my belief that he lived far longer is directly related to the process by which family histories develop. What I had "remembered," however inaccurately, was that Chica oversaw a great many events, including holidays, birthdays, graduations, marriages, and the births of grandchildren. While we humans experience these events, our pets--semi-outsiders--observe them, becoming flesh and blood record-keepers. Through their eyes, the events become singular rather than continuous: timeless points rather than passing minutes and hours whose linear nature makes the past entirely unrecoverable.

While I generally avoid assigning anthropomorphic roles to animals, I will defend this one. We humans create narratives from our pasts. Animals have no narratives since they live entirely in the "now" (now, I am hungry; now, I am tired; now, I am fed up with sticky fingers). Memory for animals is all about "the one time I went there and there was food" or "the one time I went there and got covered in syrup."

Family pets are staccato notes on the piano of life. And how else can memories be formed? Singularity is what makes our sense-generating narratives possible.

Thanks to Ann Woodbury Moore for her photos and notes. Thanks to Joe Woodbury for the professional quality photographs that grace this post (a third photograph by Joe can be found in the slideshow). Thanks to Joyce Woodbury for finding and delivering her pastel of Dad and Chica.

Am I the Only One Who Dislikes New Blogger Stats?

I really dislike the stats area on the posts page of the new Blogger interface. I tried for about twenty minutes yesterday morning to get rid of it and gave up. I'm now using the old interface.

And I'm happy with the old interface, but I'm going to rant about the stats area on the new interface anyway.

I love it when people read my blog. I love it when they send me an email or post a comment. But I don't check my stats. Ever. I really don't want to know. My blog is a chance for me to post stuff that interests me: historical notes, parts of my writing, reviews. I enjoy writing, and I enjoy trying to improve my writing. But I'm not trying to be popular.

I feel sometimes that the Internet has become the equivalent of a high school prom. This is one major reason I'm not on Facebook. Almost every person who talks to me about Facebook--even to praise it--talks about it in popular terms: the number of comments, the numbers of "friends," the number of links. After which I get to hear about who "unfriended" whom and why this person had to block that person, and why so and so got offended by somebody else's comments or pictures. And, man, is this high school or what?

I realize that for many people, the Internet is a source of income. Shoot, I post on Examiner.com. I also realize that for many people, like myself, writing is a source of income, and, well, electronic publishing is here to stay (as I can personally attest). I even realize that there are benefits to a networking site like Facebook.

But that's work. In my working life as a teacher and my other working life as a struggling writer, I have to worry about people's opinions. And I accept that as a given. I still don't want to spend every minute of every hour of every day worrying about whether I'm "cool" or making a splash.

When it comes to Blogger, I just want to communicate my ideas. It's important to me to be as clear as possible--to create posts for a potential reader rather than write to myself. (I can write to myself on my home computer or even long-hand in my journal.) But the fun of Blogger, for me, has always been the writing itself. One reader/one comment is enough to make my day.

Before anyone points out the obvious, I will admit that I should be able to look at the stats on the new interface and shrug my shoulders. If it really doesn't matter . . . But having them there, literally under my nose--when I didn't ask for them--is annoying. It reminds me of Facebook tiffs, of comments like "I don't like this" or "I don't like you" (as if such responses were the equivalent of cogent arguments), of identity becoming tied to ephemereals like the number of "hits" a person gets. It transports me back to high school.

And I really don't want to go back.

Easter in the Eighteenth Century

Like many holidays in the post-Reformation world, Easter became more an excuse for festive wildness than religious devotion.

The Medieval Catholic Church supplied pageantry and ritual coupled with religious devotion. The Protestant Reformation did away with much of the ritual. Protestants leaders like Henry VIII wanted to keep in the ritual (he just wanted to remove the pope from the equation). However, Henry VIII--however unwillingly--opened the door to the purer form of Protestantism that wanted to replace ritual entirely with individual testimony/scripture reading (and Henry VIII found it useful to detest ritual when it meant he could relieve churches of their belongings).

However, the rituals didn't vanish. Instead, they retreated into folklore/beliefs in magic and other older customs. Christmas underwent a similar transformation. This is one major reason why the Puritans in America didn't celebrate Christmas (or other ritualized celebrations). The American Christmas is the result of comparatively "new" traditions though even today, English Christmases tend to be far more, uh, worldly than so-called commercial American Christmases. To understand an English Christmas, think Thanksgiving plus Halloween plus the aftermath of a football game when the home-team won. The Christmas story is in there somewhere.

Apparently, post-Reformation Easters weren't all that dissimilar--in fact, most festivals in 1700 England could be described as "excuses to harass the neighbors and drink." (Making it more and more understandable why the Puritans were so un-enthused about bringing over these traditions.)

There was a particular Easter tradition called peace-egging which is basically trick-or-treating--for eggs! The eggs were sometimes dyed. Sometimes, the trick-or-treaters would sing. There could possibly be a connection here to "egging" a house that doesn't give you a treat on Halloween! And a possible connection to caroling. My guess is that certain traditions simply lend themselves to being used . . . no matter what the occasion!

The picture is teenage me with an egg tree, a tradition that my mom started (or continued) in our family. She would cut a bare bush or tree limb in early spring (often as the result of pruning). We would then hang blown, dyed eggs from the limb. I don't know if there is a pagan/folklore connection. To me, the egg tree simply always meant "Easter"! At one point, when I was working at a business that wouldn't allow any religious decorations, I brought in my own egg tree. Another woman, also a Christian, brought in a palm branch. There's something to be said for symbolism that totally flies under the radar because nobody gets it but the people who produced it. (Though it could also say something sad about the gap in American education.)